This country became the United States of America through the
efforts of armed forces led by General George Washington. Had it not been for
his efforts and dogged perseverance, we probably would never have gained our
freedom from Great Britain.

Neither women nor homosexuals were allowed in our military
forces at that time. The reasons for not having women were quite obvious. The
hardships and living together in close quarters to survive was a men only
situation. And, even today, there are many combat situations that are still the
same. Homosexuality – engaging in sodomy – was a crime in the military services
and in all of the colonies, as well as in all of the states, when our country
was formed. In some of the states, the penalty was death. Washington worked continually to instill Christian morality in the
members of our armed forces. Even profanity was discouraged. Washington obtained
chaplains to perform Christian religious services for the troops, and having
chaplains in the military has continued until this day, although it has become
pretty much of a joke in the last ten years.

Our country largely came about through the efforts of our
forefathers to find a place where they could freely practice true Christian
religion, without the restrictions of the Church of England. For the first two
hundred years of its life, this country had a strong Christian heritage. That
Christian heritage has disintegrated in the past fifty years, and with it our
American moral values.

Sodomy was a crime that was strictly enforced in our military
services, until the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy of the Clinton administration
allowed closeted homosexuals into the military forces. Under President Barack
Hussein Obama, men and women who openly engage in sodomy were welcomed into the
service. Men and women in the services, who did not believe in the vile acts of
sodomy, were muzzled, and prohibited from speaking out about it.

Now it has been announced that women will be allowed to serve
in combat, along with men. This will greatly reduce the effectiveness and power
of our military forces.It will
also greatly reduce the morale and morality in our armed services. We probably
already have abortion clinics for pregnant military women in our military
hospitals, along with facilities for the treatment of AIDS and HIV. If not we
will have, and this as well as the activities going on with women and
homosexuals, will continue to be kept from the public as much as possible.

Women did not become more suited to combat because of modern
times nor because of the feminists' movement. They still have the same physical
and mental characteristics and differences. The reasons why women are not suited
to be in trenches, foxholes, and in close combat quarters with men, have not
suddenly changed. What has changed is that our Commander in Chief, and the
Chiefs of Staff under him, have succumbed to radical liberalism with its
"politically correct" "diversity." This always trumps facts, experience, and
common sense, which are all against such absurdity.

How do you think a football team of women would fare against
a football team of men? How do you think women boxers would do against men
boxers? It would be ridiculous. It is even more ridiculous to put women in
mortal combat with men. Also, the immoral conduct between our service men and
women would greatly increase. This has been a big problem in the past 20 years,
because of closer contact between the two – and that is nothing to what it will
be.

Radical feminism is an evil thing when used in the manner
that it has been in this country. It is not only destructive to morality – it is
working to destroy freedom of speech and freedom of religion. It works to
destroy objective thinking and objective science. Everything must conform to
what is "politically correct," regardless of whether or not it is true and based
on facts. It will wreak havoc in our armed forces, and it already has.

When we get out of the make-believe world of feminism and
modern liberalism – into the realm of common sense; we should realize the women
should not be in combat units of the military services. They are not physically
suited to it. It will help destroy morale in our armed forces, it will result in
immoral misbehavior between men and women in close quarters, and it will greatly
reduce the effectiveness of military combat units. The acts of President Obama
indicate to me that he intentionally wants to bring our military down to the
level of third world countries.

Below are some thoughts from syndicated columnist Kathleen
Parker, from her article,
Women Simply Aren’t Designed for Vicious Combat Roles,[1]
in the Albuquerque Journal, 1/28/13:

…Women, because of
their inferior physical capacities and greater vulnerabilities upon capture,
have a diminished opportunity for survival.

… Arguments against women in direct
combat have nothing to do with courage, skill, patriotism or dedication. Most
women are equal to most men in all these categories and are superior to men in
many other areas, as our educational graduation rates at every level indicate.
Women also tend to excel as sharpshooters and pilots.

But ground combat is one area
in which women, through quirks of biology and human nature, are not equal to men
– a difference that should be celebrated rather than rationalized as incorrect.

... Fact: Females have only
half the upper-body strength as males – no small point in the field.

The argument that women’s
performance on de facto front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan has proved concerns
about combat roles unwarranted is false logic. Just because women in forward
support companies can return fire when necessary – or die – doesn’t necessarily
mean they are equal to men in combat.

Unbeknownst perhaps to many
civilians, combat has a very specific meaning in the military. It has nothing to
do with stepping on an IED or suffering the consequences of being in the wrong
place at the wrong time. It means AGGRESSIVELY ENGAGING AND ATTACKING the enemy
with deliberate offensive action, with a high probability of face-to-face
contact.

If the enemy is all around you
– and you need every available person – that is one set of circumstances. To ask
women to engage vicious men and risk capture under any other is beyond
understanding. This is not a movie or a game. Every objective study has argued
against women in direct combat for reasons that haven’t changed.

The threat to unit cohesion should require no
elaboration. But let’s leave that obvious point to pedants and cross into enemy
territory where somebody’s 18-year-old daughter has been captured. No one wants
to imagine a son in these circumstances either, obviously, but women face
special tortures. And, no, the rape of men has never held comparable appeal.

We can train our men to ignore the screams of
their female comrades, but is this the society we want to create? And though
some female veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have endured remarkable
suffering, their ability to withstand or survive violent circumstances is no
rational argument for putting American girls and women in the hands of enemy
men.

It will kill us in the end.

A WorldNet Daily article on 1/28/13, WILL 'EQUALITY' MEAN LOWER STANDARDS?,[2]
by Bob Unruh, sheds further light on the
situation. It is particularly interesting because of the information from
the
Center for Military Readiness.
The article states in part:

Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness
said the move compromises the aim of having the most trained, most skilled and
best-performing military.

“Career
pressures to make this ‘work’ will vitiate core values, because the military’s
honorable tradition of recognizing individual merit will have to yield to
pressures for ‘diversity metrics,’” she said.

Donnelly warned that Marine and Army field
commanders “who desire promotion will be compelled to pursue gender-based quotas
by ordering women into direct ground combat (infantry) battalions.”

The Pentagon, under Barack Obama’s direction, this
week said virtually every ground-combat job now will be opened to women.

The decision came even though the military itself
concedes men have physical advantages over women that are relevant to carrying
out basic tasks. The average women, the military acknowledges, for example, has
lower upper-body strength than the average man, and women are
hospitalized at a rate 30 percent higher than men.

“Integrating women into the combat arms –
primarily infantry, armor and artillery – is going to be a balancing act,” the
magazine said. “Standards must be met, but there will be pressure to ensure
enough women qualify so there’s not only one or two in a 150-troop company.

“Before long, commanders will have to implement
various types of double standards involving women, known as DSIW. And to avoid
soaring injury rates in tough training, challenges for men will be dropped and
forgotten, weakening the finest fighting force in the world.” …

She noted Panetta decided to exclude Congress and
the American people from the decision “and imposed a radical ‘diversity’ agenda
on our military without disclosing the data and results of extensive research on
the subject of women in land combat that the Marine Corps conducted last year.”

Congress now should insist on seeing the results
of the Marine research, Donnelly urged, and “conduct immediate oversight
hearings before the harmful policies imposed by the outgoing secretary of
defense become de facto law.” …

It argued females are not “equal” when it comes to
hand-to-hand combat.
The report warns America’s social experiment with
the members of its military may become costly. …

The report cites 30 years of studies in the U.S.
and allied countries showing that “in a direct ground combat environment, women
do not have an equal opportunity to survive or to help fellow soldiers survive,”
Donnelly says. …

President Obama was never in the military service,
and has no experience as to what actually goes on in combat with enemy forces.
Also, I believe he hates guns and actually loathes the military. While turning
the United States into a welfare state, he wants to reduce our military power
down to that of European countries. It always irked him that this country was
considered the super power of the world.

It seems that liberals, like Obama, are so blinded
by their make-believe ideologies that they have lost all common sense and
ability to understand the lessons of the past. This has been going on with our
military services since the radical left became prevalent in the 1960s, and we
have factual history of its failures. I covered it at some length in my book on
this website, under Books, As We Sodomize
America – The Homosexual Movement and the Decline of Morality in America.
Below is some relevant material from that book. Any of it can readily be found
by a word search in the book.

Judge Robert Bork, in his great book, Slouching Towards
Gomorrah, (Harper Collins Publishers, Inc., New York, 1996) had much to say
about the feminist movement.

Chapter 11 [of
Slouching Towards Gomorrah], “The Politics of Sex,” describes the harm done
to our culture, to our schools, and even to our military by radical feminism.

Instead of useful education, many schools are furnishing
an indoctrination of false and radical ideologies.

Judge Bork considers modern feminism to be the most
fanatical and destructive of the radical movements coming down to us from the
Sixties (p. 193). Perhaps this is
so, particularly in light of its melding with the homosexual movement.
Now they continually work together and are intertwined.
This is undoubtedly one of the reasons for the successful indoctrination
of the teachers' union, the National Education Association, with the activist
homosexual views.

[Material included in the book goes at length into the
damage done to our schools, to science, and to our country, as well as to our
military by the feminist movement. Due to length, I will not cover it in this
article, but it is all something people would do well to know.]

Judge Bork explains that the havoc wreaked by feminists to
the military services is similar to that to our educational systems. (p. 218)

Instead of using the military to defend our country, it is
being used to reform our society.
Contrary to the propaganda fed to the public, both our training and capability
standards have been lowered to accommodate women and to give the false
appearance that they are on a par with men in military combat roles. (p.
218-219) (This program is not only ridiculous and false, but is highly dangerous
to the women involved, and even more importantly, to our military capability.
This is only one of the ways in which Clinton is doing great harm to our
military forces and to their ability to defend this country.)
One example resulted in the death of Navy Lieutenant Kara Hultgreen and
the destruction of the fighter plane she was trying to fly in October 1994.
(It was fortunate that when she crashed her plane, it went into the ocean
instead of the aircraft carrier on which she was trying to land.)
She had failed the landing phase of her training in April, but the Navy
let her take it again, and she finally passed it once.
(She was given the same help in passing that "minorities" are often given
in colleges and universities. What
results is a detriment [and in this case highly dangerous] to the individuals
involved, and to society.)
Lieutenant Hultgreen was allowed to continue although (in training sessions of
simulated flight) she recorded seven crashes in combat conditions.
A male pilot with her record would have been grounded.
Although a public cover-up was made of the true results of the Navy
investigation, the private Navy conclusion was that her death and the loss of
the plane were due to pilot error.
Feminist Colorado Congresswoman Pat Schroeder tried to make the accident look
like it was caused by engine failure.
This was of course false.
The real story was how little interest the liberal media (and our liberal
representatives) had in trying to determine and let the public know the true
cause. (pp. 219-220)
It was not a "politically correct" result.

Our career military officers are intimidated and are in
justified fear of losing their careers if they express disagreement with the
feminist approach of the Clinton administration as to the proper role of women
in the military. An example is
Lieutenant Commander Kenneth Carkhuff. "On July 26, 1994, Carkhuff's superior
officer recommended him for early promotion ahead of his peers because he was an
'extraordinary department head,' a 'superior officer in charge' with 'unlimited
potential destined for command and beyond.'"
Six weeks later he stated, in a private conversation with his commanding
officer, that his religious views made him doubtful about putting women in
combat, although his views also required him to lead them into combat if ordered
by his superiors. His overall
performance was then downgraded to unsatisfactory and he was discharged from the
Navy. The matter (which amounted to a performance in stupidity by the Navy) was
summed up by his superior: "A
bright future has been lost and otherwise superb performance completely
overshadowed by this glaring irreconcilable conflict with Navy policy." (p. 220)
(Now our "Commander in Chief" is not only requiring absurdity in our military
services, but he is requiring brainwashing of our officers who have some common
sense, and the elimination from the armed forces of those who have the temerity
to display any, even in private conversations.
Our country is most fortunate that such "enlightened" leadership did not
exist during the Second World War.
Otherwise, we would probably now be under the rule of some foreign power—either
Germany or Japan or both.)

Performance in our military academies has been downgraded
to accommodate the women cadets.
For example, men are no longer required to run carrying heavy weapons, because
the women are not able to do that.
Women cannot perform nearly as well as men in the training programs. (p. 221)

"Pregnancies due to sex during the preceding phase, Desert
Shield, were the primary reason the non-deployability rate of women was many
times higher than that of men when the troops were called to battle in Desert
Storm." "Three 'Top Gun' flight
commanders had their careers destroyed because they were present at or performed
in the Tom Cat Follies, which included a rhyme denigrating Pat Schroeder.
President Bush and Vice President Dan Quayle were also lampooned, but only
parodying a fierce feminist congresswoman was considered a grave offense."
(p. 221)

In Air Force Academy physical fitness tests, very few
women could even do one pull-up on a horizontal bar, so the women were given
credit for the time that they could merely hang up on the bar.
Female cadets averaged about four times as many visits to the medical
clinic as males. At West Point, the
injury rate of women in field training was fourteen times that of men, and 61
percent of the women failed the complete physical tests, as compared with 4.8
percent of the men. "During the
Army basic training, women broke down in tears, particularly on the rifle
range." (p. 221)

It has been reported that ships have been recalled from
missions because of pregnancy of female sailors. (p. 221) (This appears to be
one immutable difference between women and men that not even Pat Schroeder and
United States Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, together, could
change.)

"A male and a female sailor on the aircraft carrier USS
Dwight D. Eisenhower, both married to others, videotaped themselves having
sex in a remote part of the ship.
There had been thirty-eight pregnancies since the crew went aboard the
Eisenhower, fourteen of them after the ship was deployed.
The Navy said that there was no indication that any of the pregnancies
resulted from sex on board the ship.
Those who wish to may believe that." (p. 222)

In the Gulf War, a female American pilot was captured,
raped, and sodomized by Iraqi troops.
She declared that this was just part of combat risk.
(Certainly this is true, and just one of the many cogent reasons that
women should not even be in zones of direct combat.)
"The Israelis, Soviets, and Germans, when in desperate need of front-line
troops, placed women in combat, but later barred them.
Male troops forgot their tactical objectives in order to protect the
women from harm or capture, knowing what the enemy would do to female prisoners
of war. This made combat units less
effective and exposed the men, also, to greater risk. (p. 222)

A little common sense would tell us what the Israelis,
Soviets, and Germans learned, besides the fact that knowledge of their
experiences is available to us.
This country seems to have lost all sense of reason in cowering before the
radical movements that have beset it.

The Clinton administration has been able to do more harm
to the military forces by its feminist views than by its homosexual agenda,
because congress fortunately curtailed the homosexual agenda to a substantial
degree. However, as noted above
from disclosures in Judge Bork's book, the feminist movement has wreaked great
havoc to our armed services. Of
late, serious charges of everything from rape to sexual harassment have been
rocking the military forces. As
previously noted, this was certainly predictable and is only a small part of the
damage to the military capability of the armed forces that has been caused by
the mixing of young men and women together in situations that are contrary to
the common sense of any experienced military personnel.

Columnist Suzanne Fields wrote an excellent article on
this subject, "Pressures of Unisex
Military Weakening Armed Forces," which was published in the Albuquerque
Journal on January 20, 1997. It
states in part:

... maybe it takes James Webb—a twice-wounded veteran of the Vietnam war
and secretary of the Navy and an assistant secretary of defense under Ronald
Reagan—to sound the most eloquent warning yet that the most dangerous military
experiment in the history of our country threatens to destroy the nation's
defense. ...

In our rush to assimilate women throughout the military, we're destroying
leadership, encouraging officers to lie about the most crucial elements of
command, and lowering morale of both men and women in the ranks.
Cynicism blossoms.

... talented women as well as men lose in a Faustian bargain.
Writes Webb in The Weekly Standard:
"This cynicism feeds a backlash, which increases tensions, even in areas
where women perform well and where their presence is not counterproductive to
the military's mission."

Soldiers traditionally have little privacy, but, says the soldiers'
newspaper Stars and Stripes, they're skilled at finding places for furtive
sexual encounters. This may require
a study of positions from the Kamasutra, to adjust to the back seat of a Humvee,
a latrine, a corner of a group tent or even an underground bunker with three
inches of water on the floor

... on average, an American servicewoman turns up pregnant every third
day.

The jokes about "love boats" and pregnant soldiers provoke laughter in
the mess hall, but elsewhere they're no laughing matter.
By placing young men and women in close sleeping quarters on ships at sea
in the Middle East and under tents in Bosnia, away from a conventional social
life and the easy, everyday affections of friends and family, the Army is
begging for trouble. Trouble, like
a good soldier, obliges on cue. ***

During the Second World War, and since then, until the
feminist movement destructively gained a foothold in the military, women served
honorably and effectively in all services.
They were separated from the men, and they were assigned to duties that
were reasonable under the circumstances, and that they were capable of
performing. But there are rather
obvious emotional and physical differences between men and women, and there are
combat and other roles to which women should not be assigned.
Never should women and men be mixed together in the field in military
activities, and never should they be mixed in living quarters on a base.
They should not undergo physical training together.
Such things are worse than absurd.
Women should be trained with women in physical training which they are
reasonably capable of performing.
They should never be mixed with men in physical training, and thereby drag down
the standards that would otherwise be required of the men.

I do not know how President Obama could be completely ignorant of these things
that have happened in our military forces in the past. It certainly appears that
he has intentionally set out to destroy the power of our armed forces, as well
as to eliminate Christian morality from them.

Putting women in combat reduces the capability and
effectiveness of our armed forces. Putting young men and women in close contact
with each other for long periods, as is required in combat zone situations,
encourages and increases sex between them, increases pregnancies and venereal
diseases, and reduces combat ability and deployability. There are no separate
toilet facilities, and often no facilities at all. When men are in combat
together, they often, of necessity, urinate, defecate, and conduct their
necessary toilet needs in close presence with one another.Putting young men and women together in these close conditions destroys
morality, and morale. To think that you could have top-notch combat forces under
such circumstances belies reason.

The drive to allow homosexuals into the military service began many years ago.
It had its first United State President behind it when William Jefferson Clinton
was elected. At that time, General Norman Swarzkopf, along with most of our
other high ranking officers, opposed it. An article on this is:
Gulf war hero opposes gays: General Schwarzkopf tells senators military is 'not
the place for social experimentation'.[3]

General Norman Schwarzkopf

However, Clinton, with the help of the more liberal members of congress got the
"Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy enacted. Openly practicing homosexuals were still
not allowed, but enlistment applicants were not asked about their "sexual
orientation." This was a poor policy, but it was nothing compared to what has
occurred under Obama. Allowing homosexuals – men and women who engage in
acts of sodomy – in the military service is very destructive.
It is also wrong and unfair to force our
decent young men and women in the service to closely associate with such people.
It necessitates considerable brainwashing of the straight members, for them to
consider the filthy, vile, and depraved acts of homosexuals as normal and
acceptable. Obama even considers it commendable, and wishes to bless the union
of sodomites with the holy sacrament of marriage.

Schools, state and local governments, and
even large corporations have surrendered to the homosexual intimidation and
onslaught. The very worst
thing that they have done is to even require "sensitivity" training for those
who retain or express any semblance of traditional morality.
Under President Clinton, the federal government has even invoked
sensitivity training to promote homosexuality.
"Sensitivity training" is merely enforced brainwashing which teaches that
homosexuality and other such deviant behavior is good and wholesome, and that
ideas to the contrary are ignorant and "bigoted."
It is subversive thought control.
How could a once religious and moral country have slipped down into such
slime and depravity? Apathy and
cowardice have played a great part.

After openly practicing homosexuals, both men and women,
were allowed in our military forces, this same brainwashing has been forced on
our military men and women.

I have previously written some articles, which are
included under Articles on this website, on the problems and destructiveness of
allowing homosexuals into our armed forces. I think the one below should be
repeated in full.

Marine Corps. General Peter Pace, Retired. General Pace was
forced out of his position as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, because he
spoke out against homosexuality and allowing homosexuals in our military
services.

While he still has a strong Democrat
majority in congress, President Barrack Hussein Obama wants to act, contrary to
the wishes of the Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, and of the Joints Chiefs
of Staff of our military forces, to repeal the law on "Don't Ask Don't Tell" and
allow openly practicing homosexuals to serve in our military. He and the other
homosexualist Democrats want to push this through before a report is completed
by the Department of Defense, which is investigating the effect on our military
of such action.

There could be nothing more destructive to
morale and morality in our armed forces than allowing such deviants in our
military. Our "President" is a man who is doing everything he can to destroy the
traditional American and Christian values upon which this country was founded.
As one who has served in the military in time of war, I am sure that the vast
majority of the members of our armed forces are very strongly against having to
put up with these perverts in our military services. This is undoubtedly one of
the reasons for pushing this legislation prior to the completion of the report.

On April 28, 2010, the Chairman of the
House Armed Services committee wrote a letter to the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael J. Mullen, and the Secretary of Defense, Robert
M. Gates, asking for their views on repealing the "so-called 'Don't Ask Don't
Tell' statute" relating to not allowing avowed practicing homosexuals in the
military services. On May 30, 2010, Admiral Mullen and Secretary Gates submitted
a joint letter to the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee on the
matter. (See a copy of the letter.[4])
The letter urged Congress not to repeal the statute until a thorough study had
been made of the matter, and ended with the paragraph:

Therefore, I strongly oppose any legislation
that seeks to change this policy prior to the completion of this vital
assessment process. Further, I hope Congress will not do so, as it would send a
very damaging message to our men and women in uniform that in essence their
views, concerns, and perspectives do not matter on an issue with such a direct
impact and consequence for them and their families.

For a person to fully understand the
"direct impact and consequence" this would have on the service men and women, he
or she has to fully understand the acts by which homosexuals get their
classification, and the kinds of things that decent men and women would have to
put up with around them. These acts are so vile, depraved, destructive, and
degrading to human beings that many people do not even wish to learn about them.
They would rather talk about these things in the abstract, and not burden their
minds with the vile realities of what takes place. For this reason, when I write
a paper on these things, I make it a point to at least briefly outline the most
common of these homosexual acts. The following is such an outline:

If research statistics are correct, 100% of
male homosexuals engaged in oral sex. Approximately 93% engage in anal sex,
inserting the penis into the anus of the partner. 92% engage in "rimming",
touching the anus of one's partner with one's tongue and inserting the tongue
into the anus. 47% engage in "fisting", inserting one's fist into the anus of
the partner. 29% engage in "golden showers", urinating on each other. 17% engage
in "scat", the eating of feces, or rubbing of feces on each other, and in "mud
rolling", rolling on the floor where feces have been deposited. It is not
uncommon for a homosexual person to declaw and defang a mouse or other rodent to
be inserted into the colon.[5]

However, it can get even more gross and dangerous than the
above. There was a Reuters news article in July, 2005, about a Seattle man who
died from having anal sex with a stud horse, resulting in perforation of the
man's colon and other internal damage. I believe that such depravity can only
come from an extremely sick mind. A later article on the matter may now be found
on the internet. This last article explains that the farm where it happened was
being used by a bestiality ring. It states: "A cache of hundreds of hours of
videotaped man-on-beast sex sessions was found hidden in a field. ... The
animals kept at the farm included ponies, horses, goats, sheep and dogs,
according to the police commander. Images of the flock of offerings on the
bestial dude ranch were relayed over the internet and records indicate men had
come from throughout the United States, according to police."[6]This is not only extreme sexual depravity, but it is also heartless
cruelty to animals.

These sick acts described are by no means
the worst things engaged in by homosexuals, and I urge you to more fully inform
yourselves by reading the articles on this website, The Depraved Excesses of Homosexual
Lifestyles,
and Homosexuals are Destructive to Our Military Forces.
There are things going on in this country that I do not believe could possibly
be happening ifenough of our citizens were fully informed on what
homosexuality really is. People should be aware of the degrading things that
have already taken place in the military by homosexuals who have lied to get
into the service. They should become aware, as described in the articles, of the
things that went on at Fort Hood. And the things that went on at Harvard
University and other places that homosexuals have been allowed to congregate. To
force such things on our service men and women is a disgrace to America.

The Family Research Council article,
Homosexual Assault in the Military[7],
by Peter Sprigg, Senior Fellow for Policy Studies
at the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C., states in part:

FRC has reviewed the “case synopses” of all
1,643 reports of sexual assault reported by the four branches of the military
for Fiscal Year 2009 (October 1, 2008 through September 30, 2009). Our startling
finding was that over eight percent (8.2%) of all military sexual assault
cases were homosexual in nature. This suggests that homosexuals in the military
are about three times more likely to commit sexual assaults than
heterosexuals are, relative to their numbers. ...

[I consider the above statistics "that
homosexuals in the military are about three times more likely to commit
sexual assaults than heterosexuals" to be very substantially less than what they
really are, because a figure of 3% was used for homosexuals in the military,
which is the figure that was used because homosexuals "admit that less than 3%
of Americans are homosexual." It cannot reasonably be expected that that many
practicing homosexuals slipped into to our armed services during a period when
they are not allowed by law. I would hazard a guess that homosexuals during that
period would be less than 1%, which would make the ratio of homosexual assaults
much higher. Also, I would point out that one of the reasons that heterosexual
sexual assaults are so high is that our liberal politicians have managed to
force young men and women in our armed forces to live and work in much closer
proximity than they did before the liberals, with their inherent lack of
conventional morality, gained so much influence. It was much different when I
was in the service in World War II.]

FRC and other supporters of the current law
have pointed out the risks involved in having service members share living
quarters with persons of the same sex who may be sexually attracted to them.
This concern is borne out by many of the case synopses reported by the Pentagon.
Consider the following cryptic case descriptions of on-base assaults, quoted
directly from the Pentagon’s report:

“Victim #1 awoke to Subject touching his
genitals.”11

“Victim awoke in his rack to a hand moving up
and down his leg and touching his groin area.”12

“Asleep in his rack, Victim #1 felt a hand grab
his genitals and Subject’s wrist. Subject then fled the room. Victim #2 woke up
to Subject grabbing his inner thigh area and he confronted the Subject.”13

"Victim awoke in
BEQ to Subject kissing his neck and trying to put his hand in his pants to touch
his genitals.”14

“Victim reported
that Subject touched his crotch on three occasions as he slept.”15

“Subject groped
Victim #1’s genitals in their room and groped Victim #2’s genitals when he was
asleep.”16

“Victim and
Subject were off base at a bar and Victim got highly intoxicated. Subject said
he would take Victim back to his barracks room but instead took Victim to his
(subject’s) barracks room. Subject orally and a—lly sodomized Victim while he
was in and out of consciousness. Subject’s computer was seized and numerous
images of child porn were found.”17

“Victim was
sleeping and awoke to find Subject performing oral sex on him without his
consent.”18

“Victim was
asleep at his computer station when Subject videotaped himself (Subject)
touching Victim’s head with his (Subject’s) genitals.”19

“Victim claimed
Subject (his roommate) slid his hand under Victim’s boxer shorts and caressed
his buttocks and attempted to grab his p---s. Victim awoke while the touching
was going on and engaged in a physical altercation with Subject.”20

“After a night
of heavy drinking, Subject got on top of Victims #1 and #2 as they slept and
kissed face, neck, and stomach before being told to stop.”21

“Subject groped Victim’s crotch several times
when helping Victim, who was intoxicated, into his bunk.”

[The
article goes on to explain the risk of homosexual assaults in bathrooms and
showers, and gives many specific examples. Such assaults are common wherever
homosexuals are allowed to mix with themselves or others. It has gone on in our
colleges and universities, in our airports, in our parks, and any other such
places these perverts are allowed.]

[The article also explains
how consensual sex in the barracks
leads to violence. These are the kinds of things that decent men will not long
put up with.]

One of the most shocking cases did not involve
a servicemember as victim, but a civilian minor. Air Force Major Rickie J.
Bellanger was charged with sexually abusing two minor boys—one of whom had begun
corresponding with Maj. Bellanger when he was in the fifth grade ... .

[[Another part of the article is on Exploiting
Rank and Using Alcohol and Homosexual Pornography to Manipulate Victims.]

The above article concludes, as any honest
and decent article would, that our military forces are no place for homosexuals.

If practicing homosexuals are allowed in
the military, not only will sexual assaults by homosexuals increase
tremendously, but assaults on homosexuals by heterosexuals will also greatly
increase. There are a lot of decent men in the service that will not put up with
their perverted advances, or the engaging in acts of sodomy in their presence.
To try to overcome this, our servicemen and women will be subjected to a
terrible kind of brainwashing called "sensitivity training." They will be
force-fed false propaganda that there is nothing wrong with the acts of sodomy
that constitute homosexuality, and punished if they do not "correctly respond"
to the false manure they are fed. This has gone on in our government agencies,
in our schools, including our colleges and universities, and in large private
corporations, in promoting homosexuality and the homosexual agenda. This
brainwashing has long been an integral part of the homosexual agenda. It is
supported by our liberal media, academia, and various organizations such as the
nation's largest teachers' union, the National Education Association.

Too many who are and
have been in the military service know of the propensities of homosexuals, and
the trouble and strife caused by them. Polls and research show
that the vast majority of our service men and women oppose allowing homosexuals
to openly serve in our military forces. Less than one-third (30%) would be
favorable to the repeal of the Don't Ask Don't Tell law. A group of "1,167
retired military leaders who have strongly reaffirmed current law and urged its
retention based on their long and distinguished military experience."[8]
If any different polling results turn up in the Department of Defense
investigation, it will undoubtedly be because of the pressures being brought
upon the military by our so-called "Commander in Chief" (Obama), and other
liberal politicians. Even our top Generals and Admirals are under constant
pressure from our Commander in Chief, who controls their positions and
promotions.

Also, the power of
the homosexual lobby is tremendous. In March, 2007, Marine General Peter Pace,
who was then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, expressed his opposition to
allowing homosexuals in the military services. He also said:

I
believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should
not condone immoral acts.

General Pace's statement of the truth
brought a firestorm of criticism against him from all angles. Freedom of speech
is far from safe in this country, no matter how true it is, if it is not
"politically correct" and consistent with liberal and homosexual dogma. General
Pace was effectively forced to resign as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
and retire from the service. "Anticipation of a 'contentious' confirmation
process on Capitol Hill prompted the decision to replace Gen. Peter Pace as
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when his term ends in September, U.S.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Friday."[9]
General Pace was a highly decorated four star general, who served his country
with distinction for more than forty years. If this can happen to General Pace,
can you imagine the pressure that there is on Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen
and the other Joint Chiefs of Staff, and all of the other officers and enlisted
men in the military service, to toe the homosexual line while Obama is their
Commander in Chief? It is indeed amazing that 70% of the military personnel had
the courage to state that they were against open homosexuals in the military
under these conditions. Things like this not only destroy the moral fiber and
the morale of our military services – they destroy the moral fiber of our whole
country.

The following are excerpts from the
Summary Statement from Elaine Donnelly,
President, Center for Military Readiness,
In Support of Section 654, Title 10,
the 1993 Law Stating that Homosexuals are not Eligible to Serve in the Military,[10]
in the House Armed Services Committee:

If Congress repeals the 1993 statute stating
that homosexuals are not eligible to serve in uniform, and the military is
ordered to accommodate professed (not discreet) homosexuals, the culture of the
military will be radically changed. Recruiters will be directed to accept and
even seek out professed homosexuals for induction in all branches of the
military.

This means that heterosexuals will be required
to live in forced cohabitation with professed (not discreet) homosexuals, on all
military bases and ships at sea, on a 24/7 basis. Such a policy would impose
new, unneeded burdens of sexual tension on men and women serving in
high-pressure working conditions, far from home, that are unlike any occupation
in the civilian world.

The real-world issue here is not superficial.
Nor is it a Hollywood fantasy portrayed for laughs in a television sitcom. We
are talking about human sexuality and the normal, human desire for personal
privacy and modesty in sexual matters.

Repealing the 1993 law would be tantamount to
forcing female soldiers to cohabit with men in intimate quarters, on all
military bases and ships at sea, on a 24/7 basis. Stated in gender-neutral
terms, forced cohabitation in military conditions—which offer little or no
privacy—would force
persons to live with
persons who might be sexually attracted to them.

Inappropriate passive/aggressive actions
conveying a homosexual message or approach, short of physical touching and
assault, will be permitted in all military communities, to include Army and
Marine infantry battalions, Special Operations Forces, Navy SEALS, and cramped
submarines that patrol the seas for months at a time.

The ensuing sexual tension will hurt discipline
and morale, but commanders will not have the power to improve the situation.
Individuals whose beliefs and feelings about sexuality are violated by the new
policy will have no recourse. The only option will be to avoid or leave the
service.

We keep hearing that in the brave new “Will &
Grace” world, none of this matters. And yet, it was only a year ago when the
nation reacted with universal disapproval of Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) and 39
others who were arrested for inappropriate behavior in a public but transient
place at the Minneapolis airport over a period of three months.

Columnist Michael Medved asked a fair question:
“If preventing public sex in airport men’s rooms is important enough to justify
the deployment of undercover cops, isn’t it similarly important to deter the
sexualization of private facilities in the military?” ...

I encourage you to read the
letter from Cynthia Yost, a former Army
medical corpsman, who suffered a physical assault by a group of lesbians. Yost
wrote that she did not report the assault because she did not want to be accused
of racism, which would have derailed her military career.

Yost predicted that if professed homosexuals
serve in the military, “An assault like the one I endured would be
"de-criminalized," on the grounds that the victim is a “homophobe” if they won't
just "relax and enjoy" being sexually assaulted.

Ms. Yost made an additional point. After the
sexual assault, one of the lesbians began taking surreptitious photos of her and
other female soldiers in the showers─running off and laughing when the victims
turned to look. In these days of digital cameras and camera phones with Internet
access, such photos could be sent anywhere and everywhere in the world in
seconds. ...

The London
Telegraph also reported that a British Army officer was severely
disciplined just for stating a negative opinion about gays and lesbians in the
British military. Is this what we want in our military? Accusations and
penalties could become common if gays in the military are given full civil
rights status. [Decent service men and women are forced to make-believe that
there is nothing wrong with the vile acts of homosexual sodomy.]

I ask again, How would all this turmoil improve
readiness, morale, and discipline? ...

[The report is replete with actual cases in the
military of homosexual assault, pornography, and homosexual assaults by "gays"
that had HIV, and knew it. This is typical homosexual conduct. To save space, I
am only listing a few of the examples.]

Lt. Cmdr. John Thomas Lee, a 42 year-old
Catholic priest, is a Navy chaplain who tested positive for HIV in 2005. The
Washington Postreported on December 7, 2007, that Lt. Cmdr. Lee pleaded guilty to
several serious charges: consensual and forcible sodomy with several men,
including a Naval Academy midshipman, an Air Force lieutenant colonel, and a
Marine corporal. Lee’s misconduct involved indecent acts, aggravated assault for
not informing at least one victim of his contagious HIV status, and conduct
unbecoming an officer that was all the more reprehensible because of the
betrayal of trust associated with Lee’s status as a priest and chaplain. ...

In another disturbing case reported last year,
Pfc. Johnny Lamar Dalton, 25, was charged with assault with a deadly weapon —
the HIV virus. The soldier reportedly failed to tell an 18 year-old teenager
about his HIV-positive status before they had unprotected, consensual sex. The
unnamed young man previously had been HIV-negative. ...

Issues of health and deployability must be
considered. Congress has recognized that
all soldiers serving in a combat environment are potential blood donors for
each other. Therefore, persons found to be HIV-positive are not deployable,
but once they are in uniform they must
be retained for as long as they are physically able. [Emphasis added.] ...

If the 1993 law is repealed, the armed forces
will be pressured to follow the example of Britain in creating some sort of
legal/social status for same-sex couples, and providing quarters for same-sex
couples in family housing. ...

Air Force Captain Devery L. Taylor was
convicted and sentenced to twenty-eight to fifty years in prison for raping four
men, allegedly with date-rape drugs. According to a report in
Air Force Times, an investigator interrogating Taylor, now a
convicted serial rapist, said that hewould not ask any questions about the man’s sexual practices because
such questions are notallowed. This statement demonstrated how misunderstandings about the
1993 homosexualconduct law help to create volatile conditions that undermine good
order and discipline. Suchmisconduct should not be considered “off limits” to questioning just
because it happens to occurbetween persons of the same sex. ...

Finally, advocates of gays in the military have
vilified retired Marine Gen. Peter Pace, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, who expressed his personal views regarding gays in the military and
personal morality during an interview on March 11, 2007. A wave of name calling
and demands for an apology ensued, but Gen. Pace had no reason to apologize for
a law duly enacted by Congress. ...

D.
Recommendations and Conclusion

1.
Enforce the 1993 Homosexual Conduct Law
...

---------------------------------------

Forcing Extreme Danger of HIV and AIDS on Our
Military Men and Women[11]

The United States Center for Disease
Control states:

Gay and bisexual men — referred to in CDC
surveillance systems as men who have sex with men (MSM)— of all races continue to be the risk group most severely affected
by HIV. Additionally, this is the only risk group in the U.S. in which the
annual number of new HIV infections is increasing. ...

[T]he rate of new HIV diagnoses among MSM
[homosexual men] in the U.S. is more than 44 times that of other [heterosexual]
men ... .[12]

The deadly HIV virus, and resulting AIDS,
can be contracted in a number of ways. Established ways are through the contact
of saliva or blood of a contaminated person, as well as through sexual
relations. A very common way is through blood transfusions. Not all of the ways
that this deadly virus may be contracted are known. There are established cases
where people have contracted the disease, and the way in which it was done was
not determined, but the common ways named were ruled out. A great many
homosexuals have intentionally infected others with HIV. In any event, our
service men and women should not be forced into the close relationship with
homosexuals that comes through military life, particularly in the field, where
many have had do such things as share small tents and shelters together.

Homosexuals introduced the deadly AIDS
virus into this country and spread it among themselves and to innocent people.
They have done a terrible damage to themselves, and to innocent people who are
not homosexuals. They contaminated blood supplies, sometimes intentionally, and
were the cause of many completely innocent people dying of AIDS. Thousands of
their victims were innocent children with hemophilia, who had to have blood
transfusions to live, and who had done nothing to deserve the terrible death
inflicted upon them. I know of no other time in history when such devastation
has been caused by such intentional vile and despicable acts. Yet, instead of
being given the condemnation they deserve, they have been praised by our liberal
news media and politicians.

A very high percentage of homosexuals, today, are
infected with HIV. And there is no way to even tell for sure whether a person
has HIV. The statistics of the Center for Disease Control, referred to above,
are therefore conservative. This presents an extreme and deadly danger that
would be particularly incurred in combat situations, where a person immediately
needs a blood transfusion from an available comrade.Actually, in the usual case there would be no time for testing for HIV,
even if there were dependable tests.

There has always been a "negative window" of time in
which a person contracts the HIV virus, and can pass it on to others, and no
test will determine with any certainty whether or not the person has the virus.
This window of time has been assessed at anywhere from three months to three
years. Even now there is no test that can positively detect the HIV (AIDS)
virus. The Federal Food and Drug Administration states: "Blood donor testing
using current advanced technologies has greatly reduced the risk of HIV
transmission but cannot yet detect all infected donors or prevent all
transmission by transfusions." For that reason, under federal regulation,
homosexuals are prohibited from donating blood.[13]
However, the homosexuals are continually fighting to have that regulation
removed. All you have to do is do a Google search (use: homosexual +blood
donor), and you will find many articles by homosexuals advocating that this be
changed, and calling it "discrimination." The intent of these people is
criminal. They want to drag everyone down to their level, including having
everyone as disease contaminated as they are. Homosexuals who want to do things
that they know will give AIDS to innocent people are worse than just mentally
sick – they are evil and criminal.

I also consider it criminal for our President Obama and
the Democrat congress to force this danger on our men and women serving us in
the armed forces of this country.

Conclusion

It would be a terrible disgrace to America,
and very destructive to our military services, if the immoral conditions and
inherent dangers of open homosexuals in the military are forced on our young men
and women in the service of this country.

---------------------------------------------------------

Now it has happened, and even worse. Obama
and the liberals have deliberately increased the danger of AIDS to our country
generally, and specifically to our service men and women. Prior to Obama, people
with communicable diseases were not allowed in our military forces, and were not
allowed to immigrate into this country. And people with the deadly HIV virus
were not even allowed to travel in this country. But Obama and the Democrats, to
please their activist homosexual supporters, have changed all of this.

In October, 2009, Obama lifted the ban on travel into the
United States by HIV carriers. An article on it is the
New York Times article,
Obama Lifts a Ban on Entry
Into U.S. by H.I.V.-Positive People.[14]
It states:

President Obama on Friday announced the end of a
22-year ban on travel to the United States by people who had tested positive for
the virus that causes
AIDS, fulfilling a promise he made to gay advocates and acting to
eliminate a restriction he said was “rooted in fear rather than fact.” …

Under the ban,
United States health authorities have been required to list H.I.V. infection as
a “communicable disease of public health significance.” Under immigration
law, most foreigners with such a disease cannot travel to the United States. The
ban covered both visiting tourists and foreigners seeking to live in this
country.

He also lifted the
ban on our policy that banned HIV carriers as immigrants. Obama
Lifts HIV Immigration Ban:

The Obama Administration's new rule will eliminate a clause in the Immigration &
Nationality Act (INA) that denies admission to those with HIV. In 1993, a clause
specifically designed to reduce the spread HIV/AIDS into the United States was
added to the INA; it was passed by the Senate with a vote of 76 to 23. It reads:

"Any alien who is determined (in accordance with regulations prescribed by the
Secretary of Health and Human Services) to have a communicable disease of public
health significance, which shall include infection with the etiologic agent for
acquired immune deficiency syndrome…is inadmissible." (8 USCS § 1182)

For all
practical purposes, the ban on "gays" in the military service ended when Obama
was elected and became Commander if Chief of our Armed Forces. He was far more
interested in getting rid of the ban than he was in enforcing it. It was
officially ended on July 22, 2011.[16]

Homosexuals are
infected with the HIV virus by a much greater percentage than heterosexuals.
They are the only ones who originally had the disease in this country. They are
the ones who introduced HIV and resulting AIDS into this country and spread it
around to others – sometimes intentionally.[17]
But just forcing our military men and women to closely associate with those who
engage in sodomy; and who, because of that activity, are infected with HIV by a
very high percentage, was not enough for Obama and the activist homosexuals.

Now, under Obama's orders, homosexuals
with HIV are allowed to stay in the military services and continue endangering
others.[18]
This forces a great and unnecessary danger of contracting AIDS on our service
men and women.

The policy changes referred to in this article are
doing critical damage to our Armed Forces, and great harm to the young men
and women serving our country in them.

Modern liberalism is a cancer eating at the
heart and soul of America.